Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5187450" data-attributes="member: 3400">I think what you're doing here is show us how Noonan's statement leads to 4e's design making his statement true. If your analysis indicates that the NPC lives an average of 5 rounds and you then give it no more than 5 options, you really are making Noonan's statement into the truth. Before, some of these NPCs had a dozen or more options. The fact that they got to pick 5 of them to use before dying doesn't change the fact that they had a broader set to choose from. Cutting those down to 5 in the interest of getting rid of &quot;extra&quot; stuff means cutting down the NPC's flexibility and constrains its scope.Yes, but now NPC figure #1 has a limited scope. The stat block determines how he will be used before even encountering the PCs and their approach to the impending meeting. I think it's great that some 4e creatures (particularly humanoids) have specialties. Humanoids can use them well and it fits well with different gear they may be kitted out with.But compare specialists with 3e multi-purposers like a lot of the demons and devils or even a rival adventurer kitted out with multiple interesting items and tactical choices. The specialist's limited scope severly hampers flexibility as the encounter unfolds but the multi-purpose NPCs can adjust to have something interesting and effective to do even if the encounter moves away from their primary strengths. I compare this effect to hyperspecialized PCs in 3e who are at their best with a limited tactical suite (the spiked chain tripper, for example) but who is completely flumoxed by a flying opponent because they didn't have the foresight to pack a bow. I believe games suffered because players chose to do this sort of thing, got frustrated, and complained. I don't think the game's better because it now arbitrarily extends to more NPCs as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5187450, member: 3400"] I think what you're doing here is show us how Noonan's statement leads to 4e's design making his statement true. If your analysis indicates that the NPC lives an average of 5 rounds and you then give it no more than 5 options, you really are making Noonan's statement into the truth. Before, some of these NPCs had a dozen or more options. The fact that they got to pick 5 of them to use before dying doesn't change the fact that they had a broader set to choose from. Cutting those down to 5 in the interest of getting rid of "extra" stuff means cutting down the NPC's flexibility and constrains its scope. Yes, but now NPC figure #1 has a limited scope. The stat block determines how he will be used before even encountering the PCs and their approach to the impending meeting. I think it's great that some 4e creatures (particularly humanoids) have specialties. Humanoids can use them well and it fits well with different gear they may be kitted out with. But compare specialists with 3e multi-purposers like a lot of the demons and devils or even a rival adventurer kitted out with multiple interesting items and tactical choices. The specialist's limited scope severly hampers flexibility as the encounter unfolds but the multi-purpose NPCs can adjust to have something interesting and effective to do even if the encounter moves away from their primary strengths. I compare this effect to hyperspecialized PCs in 3e who are at their best with a limited tactical suite (the spiked chain tripper, for example) but who is completely flumoxed by a flying opponent because they didn't have the foresight to pack a bow. I believe games suffered because players chose to do this sort of thing, got frustrated, and complained. I don't think the game's better because it now arbitrarily extends to more NPCs as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification